::Which says nothing about why people subscribe: I keep up with his videos because I like to laugh at the foolish, not because I agree with him at all. [[User:ReneH|ReneH]] 18:48, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

::Which says nothing about why people subscribe: I keep up with his videos because I like to laugh at the foolish, not because I agree with him at all. [[User:ReneH|ReneH]] 18:48, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

:::My point is, conservative, that there may have been a flood of negative comments largely overwhelming the positive ones had [[shockofgod]] not decided to screen them. I'm not saying no one liked the video; I'm saying that characterizing it as successful based solely on positive comments is not a rational evaluation.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:53, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

:::My point is, conservative, that there may have been a flood of negative comments largely overwhelming the positive ones had [[shockofgod]] not decided to screen them. I'm not saying no one liked the video; I'm saying that characterizing it as successful based solely on positive comments is not a rational evaluation.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:53, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

−

:::::::I am not going to quibble with you as far as what constitutes a successful video. I stand by my statement that there were many positive comments that were made. One last thing, [[shockofgod]] says he is participating in the Question evolution campaign [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVM2Ugk9zCU full throttle!] :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:59, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

+

:::::::I am not going to quibble with you as far as what constitutes a successful video. I stand by my statement that there were many positive comments that were made. One last thing, [[shockofgod]] said "I want to go [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I full throttle!] with the [[Question evolution! campaign]]". :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:59, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

::::By the way, I loved the way he used the dog toy as a prop to emphasize the fact that atheists are but a squeak in American society. The [http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf ARIS data] was good to use, but the dog toy prop was the icing on the cake. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:18, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

::::By the way, I loved the way he used the dog toy as a prop to emphasize the fact that atheists are but a squeak in American society. The [http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf ARIS data] was good to use, but the dog toy prop was the icing on the cake. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:18, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

+

:::::Shockofgod now has over 20,000 subscribers.[http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod?feature=watch] :)

Page Protection

Archiving

The constant archiving of this page becomes annoying. Please keep in mind that archiving shouldn't interrupt or quench ongoing discussions - in the worst case, the discussion is continued in the archive (as happened here: Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2).

Furthermore, archiving should be done 'diligently - I seem to remember a discussion about non-fat atheists which was obviously lost during archiving.

Though no one addressed my concerns about archiving, I want to point out another policy which irks me: the constant deletion and recreations of pages and talk pages. I understand that such an action may be necessary on some rare occasions, but this is done all the time! It plays havoc withe your list of contributions, making it impossible to find the comments of editors via this tool. And have a look at Sun Tzu: you get the impression that User:Conservative wrote the article, but it has been a collaboration of various editors. How can it be reasonable to conceal their efforts?
AugustO 10:17, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

Augusto0, the Conservapedia:Community Portal page has been established; hopefully this will help deal with some of the problems that have been highlighted. This page here is for Main Page news and features discussions.

We'll need help maintaing the Community Portal page, watching it, archiving it, answering noobie questions, etc. Project proposals, and policy development proposals should also be directed there. With everyone's help and cooperation we can make this work. Thank you. Rob Smith 13:54, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia has broken our May record for unique visitors!

I assume that this means that there has been less unique visitors in May 2010, May 2009, etc. But how does May 2011 fare in comparison with Jan - Apr 2011? April was a record-breaking month, too...

It would be nice to see the actual number, just to be able to compare it with other sites - and add some credibility to the claim Television is losing its relevancy, as people flock to Conservapedia for content.

The liberal economic paradigm of John Maynard Keynes is unraveling. Conservative websites are going to see increased web traffic. Liberal governments are up to their necks in debt, have shaky currencies, have inefficient economies and quick fix "solutions" are increasingly ineffective. Politics can trump economics for a while, but sooner or later, the economic piper needs to be payed. Read the recent front page posts and wake up and smell the coffee. conservative 12:19, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, reading your answer I get the impression that you don't have access to the data I ask for and therefore refer me to the more anecdotal evidence of the recent front page posts. tI will be more productive if you address the concerns in the section above, as these concern you directly.

August, it appears you want keep drinking in the propaganda the public school system and liberal media promotes unfiltered by critical thinking. You remind me of this historical figure: "Arnold Bennett (born 1867), novelist, playwright, essayist, was a shy man...Shy men like Arnold Bennett usually believe in cities. At an outside table of a Paris cafe Arnold Bennett was sitting with his lover. He filled his glass from a jug of untreated tap water. A waiter leaned towards him. ‘Ah,’ said the waiter, ‘ce n’est pas sage, Monsieur, ce n’est pas sage.’ The waiter’s reproof made Arnold Bennett feel uncomfortable. He avoided looking his lover in the face. But Arnold Bennett believed that the stories about the dangers of drinking untreated tap water were scare-mongering. ‘Look,’ he said, ‘everyone here drinks it all the time.’Defiantly, Arnold Bennett drank down his glass of water. He might then have dabbed at his lips with a handkerchief to stop them glistening in the sun. Arnold Bennett died three months later, from typhoid fever, contracted from Paris drinking water."[1]conservative 13:31, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

What are you even talking about? What does AugustO have to do with typhoid-infected drinking water? Show us the stats and we'll believe the claim, much in the way you demanded to see proof of President Obama's birth certificate. RichDunbar 14:02, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

This site has always provided an enormous amount of statistics on usage. The birth certificate analogy obviously doesn't fit because there is no constitutional requirement for holding office at issue here.--Andy Schlafly 14:37, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

I'm aware that there are usage statistics but I cannot find the stats on individual page views or viewers per month. And while I recognize that there is no constitutional requirement on your part to release these statistics, there is an accountability requirement, because if we can't see these stats how are we supposed to believe the claim? And don't invoke President Obama here because what I'm looking for here is accountability from you and Conservapedia; this shouldn't be intended as a political point. RichDunbar 14:49, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

"I'm aware that there are usage statistics but I cannot find the stats on individual page views or viewers per month." It took me less than 45 seconds to find them on Alexa. Karajou 15:19, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

Well if the website going to make this claim I don't find it reasonable to have to go to a different website to verify the claim. I don't see how difficult it would be for the site to either link to these stats or host them on a special page for this purpose. RichDunbar 15:49, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

Rich, based on my past recollections, I thought August was a time waster and no amount of evidence would be enough to show that Conservapedia traffic was up. I should have considered there were others in the background who may be more reasonable. My apologies. I found this website which lists 3 web traffic tracking companies: http://www.cubestat.com/www.conservapedia.com (alexa, compete, and quantcast). Lastly, the Conservapedia article webpage updates the traffic from time to time and sometimes offers data on how Conservapedia's traffic compares to other conservative websites. 17:43, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

@Aschlafly: This site has always provided an enormous amount of statistics on usage. I can't find any numbers other than those stated at Special:Statistics. Though it is laudable that this page is linked from the sidebar, it doesn't constitute an enormous amount of statistics - it is just the amount which can found at any wiki (see e.g., wikipedia). Indeed, wikipedia gives you a truly enormous amount of statistics! But perhaps I just missed the plethora of numbers and diagrams Conservapedia is providing? In this case, please just give me a link! However, if it is a tradition to provide statistics, why not stick to it and present the actual numbers?

@Conservative: Rich, based on my past recollections, I thought August was a time waster and no amount of evidence would be enough to show that Conservapedia traffic was up I don't doubt that Conservapedia has broken its May record for unique visitors. But it is hard to judge the significance of this observation without having the actual numbers. As for being a time waster - I just reread your amusing anecdotes and was reminded of CBP:Matthew 7:3.

@Karajou: It took me less than 45 seconds to find them on Alexa Thanks for your effort. But this is obviously not the answer to my question - you can't get the number of unique visitors in May 2011 from these charts - nor the numbers of the previous months.

@RichDunbar: if we can't see these stats how are we supposed to believe the claim As I said above, I do believe the claim. Why shouldn't I? And I will believe the numbers when those are provided - there is no reason not to do so.

AugustO- When I said we I was using it to represent all readers of the site, not specifically you and me. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. RichDunbar 13:57, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

@RichDunbar: thanks for the explanation

@Aschlafly: from the (lack of) an action I assume that you do not intend to "show us the data". I wished you just said so - This site has always provided an enormous amount of statistics on usage was somewhat misleading... AugustO 10:06, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't think the term 'flubbed' is appropriate, it implies he intended to say something else but actually messed up his lines, when in fact it would seem he said what he was meant to say, whether you agree with it or not. Personally, I think the issue of the exact words he chose is pretty trivial, and that's coming from someone who has just written something as pedantic as that previous sentence! WilliamB1 17:31, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

Some MPR Items

Does it not trouble you that User:TerryH is promoting his own news articles on MPR to the point of taking up more than 30% of MPR at times? They're not even well-written. JClayton 17:34, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

No, but it seems to trouble you. Do you have more incisive material and better written material so you can show TerryH how it is done? conservative 17:54, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

JClayton, let's see how good of a writer you are, and then let's compare your work to TerryH's, which is absolutely first-rate. So far your writing here has totaled ... a mere two sentences. What grade would you give that?--Andy Schlafly 17:58, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

Isn't this "show you can do better" argument a little weak? You feel able to criticise the President of the United States without showing that you could do the job. Or will you run and show us all how it is done? SeamusC 08:02, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

*an unmerited criticism. There's probably others but I don't want to reread it more than I have to. TerryB 08:17, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

I believe Skitt's Law ("Any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself.") applies. And likely by the rules posted by conservative himself, Andy's post should have used "first rate" instead of "first-rate". But of course, conservative only wanted to direct unsolicited criticism at JClayton for the irony of it all. --RahamatAllahi 10:18, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for the correction. Unlike liberals, I am able to admit when I make an error and learn from it. One of the reasons why the liberal state of California is such bad shape is that they are unwilling to receive correction and learn from their mistakes. conservative 12:13, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

Well, count me embarrassed about the typo. Conservative, what does California have to do with this? On an additional note, I find it ironic that you were unable to spell my username correctly in the topic subheading. JClayton 12:42, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

To return to the point, one of the great things about CP is that it's not a free-for-all like WP - new editors can't just jump in and start criticizing established, respected contributors. People with a proven record of excellent work don't have to answer to every pseudonymous critic who makes an account, so they have more time to spend producing even better work. I'm new here and only make small edits to fix errors, but I think I have a reasonable record of doing that well, so I'd feel confident to argue a point relating to grammar or factual errors, even with an established editor. On the other hand I don't consider that I have any right to criticize people who have written compelling original content, because I've never done the same. On CP, the only way you can be taken seriously as a writer is by writing, not by having the right friends or subscribing to the right dogmas. Jcw 13:38, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

JClayton, it is rather humorous that you only returned when I indicated the folly of being unamenable to correction. Secondly, you still haven't shown that the TerryH's pieces were poorly written or apologized for making a false claim. Evidently, you are still a person who finds it difficult to learn from correction. I also noticed you have yet to show an incisive work of yours that is well written. It does seem to me at this point that you may covet TerryH's access to the main page and there is a distinct possibility that you are a liberal who is obsessed with Conservapedia. As far as your apparent obsession, the bitten dog yelps the loudest. :) conservative 13:42, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

Error in news

Just a small error. In the news item "Thank liberal economics: "Home prices plunge by 4.2 percent, threatening economic recovery." In 2010, they fell by another 5.1 percent," the word "another" suggests that the 5.1% fall occurred after the 4.2% fall. JimAB 16:52, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

No, that does not seem to be an error. "Another" is often, but not always, used to refer to something subsequent in time.--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

Kevorkian

Why is "Doctor" in quotes, he is a real doctor who eventually started killing people. When a police officer looses it do we put "officer" in quotes? People have been practicing assisted suicide for thousands of years, presumably Darwinians and Nazis A) didn't have time machines and B) didn't care much about these elderly and disabled people who already couldn't reproduce. --PeterBr 15:28, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

He violated his Hippocratic Oath and was stripped of his medical title when he was sentenced to prison. He was too concerned with death than he was with life, and he expressed it in his suicide machine, his acts, his demands to change laws regarding it, his paintings, and so on. Now he's explaining his actions to his Maker. Karajou 15:35, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Karajou, he lost his license. He was no longer a doctor, and doesn't deserve the title, which conveys a huge amount of respect.

As an aside, way to stay classy, Karajou, and wait a full 12+ hours before you dance on a man's grave and call him Nazi-esque. EricAlstrom 16:21, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

Kervokian danced on other's graves, those he helped to die. If the shoe - or jackboot - fits, wear it. Karajou 01:53, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

God pulled the plug on Dr. Death. I think we spotted a liberal named Eric, run Forest, run.--Jpatt 00:28, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't know what you mean by "run, Forest, run", but whatever. But a liberal? Why am I a liberal? Because I don't think it's appropriate to call a man who just died a Nazi on a site that should be an educational resource for high school students? That's the most important determination? Not that fact that I'm a laissez faire libertarian economically, or that I'm staunchly anti-abortion, or that I worked for as a campaign staffer for my Republican US Congressman John Kline? Just not wanting to call a man a Nazi = liberalism. Gotcha. But I don't mean to fight, and I've been snarky enough already. EricAlstrom 13:54, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, but I don't believe you. Can you backup anything you just wrote with proof? "Stay classy", "Dance on the a man's grave" are common statements employed by our liberal friends that lurk here. --Jpatt 14:02, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

College Students

It's minor I know, but the ellipsis in the quote from the LA Times article about college students only omits "such" between "Not surprisingly," and "a widespread lack . . .". I only noticed because the ellipsis prompted me to look for the full quote to see if the gist of it had been conveyed. Which is has. If anything, I think including "such" would only strengthen the argument. --JustinD 18:09, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

Santorum

Perhaps Santorum's announcement[2] that he is running should be a Main Page news item? I've already updated his article. Thank you. JanW 11:18, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

It's disappointing to see this site prefer 'fat' jokes and various bits of point-scoring in the "In The News" section, rather than report on a significant and conservative GOP candidate announcing his candidacy in the Presidential election. JanW 15:35, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

atlas shrugged

'Pro-life' film

I hardly think the film mentioned on the main page is going to serve as a useful promotional tool for pro-lifers. Judge its quality as a film by all means, but if you think promoting a movie whose plot is built around the kidnapping of three women is going to do anything to help the pro-life cause, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. WilliamB1 15:10, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

Don't judge a book by its cover. Producer Kenneth Del Vecchio said he is hoping this could change the minds of women who are thinking about getting an abortion. --Jpatt 15:20, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

I think perhaps the news item should be reworded. Right now, it sounds more like it's about people are forcing women to give birth. I have not seen the movie, and I am not pro-life, so I may be biased, but kidnapping pregnant women and forcing them to have kids is not going to convince anybody, let alone make them want to watch the film. Remember that the other side of the abortion debate calls itself "pro-choice." As it stands, the description of the film sounds more like a pro-choice piece. Just my thought.--CamilleT 15:37, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

I am not going to reword. It's a horror film, youths love horror. I don't think you would watch the film, or would change anybody's mind if the story was about pro-choicers having coffee. It's original, it's bold and the effects on thinking have yet to be determined. We'll have to wait and see if the movie reaches enough eyeballs to make a difference. --Jpatt 15:49, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

(edit conflict) Camille, your point is well-taken, but at Conservapedia we don't "dumb down" our headlines. This headline requires some thought to understand, but that isn't a bad thing. I support leaving it as is, unless the author of the headline wants to revise it.--Andy Schlafly 15:50, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

The current concept of horror is "MONSTERS, ZAMBIES, AND BLOOD/GORE, EVERYWHERE". kids aren'tr going to find a movie about woman being kidnapped (a crime) and being forced to have babies scary, just... weird. Nor is it really going to change anybodies minds about abortion, unless people start kidnapping people (again a crime) to force them to not commit abortions. --SeanS 17:03, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

I love how everybody knows this film won't make a difference. Monsters (kidnappers) Zombies (pro-choicers) blood and gore (birth), sounds like a horror flick to me. --Jpatt 17:11, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm not saying it won't, i just don't see how its going to given the premise of the movie. And Trust me, teenagers aren't going to be seeing those that way, i would know.. --SeanS 17:15, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

Robert Loggia and Charles Durning are in it so that is going to be enough for people born before WW II like some of our parents. Those guys are very famous. Kids don't even vote so who cares whether they're pro life or not. We're going to get rid of Roe v. Wade and then more conservative states will make abortion illegal. Nate 18:35, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

Because... kids are going to become voters, therefor what THEY feel about the issues is prime. Or shall we just leave the lot of us for the liberals to get at? You seem to forget that the future lies in those who are being born into it, and they are going ot see your attitude as a reason to reject all tradtional values--SeanS 19:07, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

Slow down SeanS. I'll tell you about my attitude and explain more. Young people are not going to be the ones getting laws passed to ban most abortions once Roe v. Wade is overturned. That will be happening in the next 2-5 years and the battle will be won or lost by the time we could reach and teach them and they could make a difference. That is not cynical. It is practical. As an adult this is my time to fight. I do care what kind of adults my children will become and what they think and believe but they are not the ones fighting this battle. For all the "liberals" who will oppose the law forcing all to be respectful of life because some wish to do so, they will learn the hard way. I can understand you think you can tell something about my attitude from what I said. I was not careful with my words so thank you. You did not know so I will tell you that my wife and I teach our children to live their lives as vocations in Christ. That is our attitude. Anyhow, I don't know whether this movie will appeal to young people. My high school age daughter likes Glee and music I can't stand, but she doesn't have the power yet to witness like an adult with many years of practice in faith does and never once asked to go see any thriller movies starring WW II veterans. I fear most good kids who mean well and will learn right from wrong are not ready to do what needs to be done right this moment and this movie is important for different reasons than reaching children. Nate 19:50, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

I watched it's trailer, i showed it to people my age, i showed it to ages who would actually get anything important from it. they mostly laughed or did not understand what it was going for. and you think we won't matter? got to remember, our base is large, and we could easily remake roe V. Wade again, just because we "are not fully formed" doesn't mean my age group is powerless. Teenagers also tend to be verrrry liberal, who will push liberals into office, so it's best to try and make them conservative, not say "idc about them, the fight is here and now." now stop insulting teenagers by saying we aren't important, it's rather rude--SeanS 21:47, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

Which says nothing about why people subscribe: I keep up with his videos because I like to laugh at the foolish, not because I agree with him at all. ReneH 18:48, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

My point is, conservative, that there may have been a flood of negative comments largely overwhelming the positive ones had shockofgod not decided to screen them. I'm not saying no one liked the video; I'm saying that characterizing it as successful based solely on positive comments is not a rational evaluation.--CamilleT 18:53, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

By the way, I loved the way he used the dog toy as a prop to emphasize the fact that atheists are but a squeak in American society. The ARIS data was good to use, but the dog toy prop was the icing on the cake. :) conservative 19:18, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Shockofgod

The box on the left side of the main page says that Shockofgod's Youtube channel has received "millions of views". However, the statistics on his channel show that he has actually received only 995,000 views. WilliamB1 07:45, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

That box has since been replaced, but the factual error remains in the article for Shockofgod. However, it is protected and as such I have been unable to correct it. Nor have I been able to point out the mistake on the talk page for this article as this simply redirects to an essay page (also protected) for some reason. WilliamB1 13:02, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

The woman ended up escaping the situation and has since delivered a healthy baby.

The man's sentence was steeper than it otherwise normally would have been because of an Ohio State law that says a person can be found guilty of murder for causing the unlawful termination of a pregnancy (so this case was attempted murder).

I know at least some other states have similar fetal homicide laws - does anyone know how many? --AaronT 18:14, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

Archuleta Fat Jokes

Do we really have to descend into the gutter to report the news at this site? Is the only thing worth saying about Ms.Archuleta's appointment - a woman with whom I'm confident there's much to disagree, but who looks perfectly normal to me - that she's "overweight"? Do you realize how completely pathetic it makes this site look, to just be slinging fat jokes at some unfortunate woman? Is that how low we've sunk? I'm flabbergasted - I thought this was a Christian site, but it often has the appearance of being run by nine year old boys. And again - has no-one thought to post the news of Rick Santorum's announcement? He's a good man and might make a good President, but instead of reporting actual news, we seem to just want to insult women. Wow. JanW 23:27, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

Jan, are you suggesting that males criticize obesity more than females do? If so, does that mean Michelle Obama's anti-obesity comments are an exception?--Andy Schlafly 23:37, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

Hi Aschalfly. It's completely disingenuous to characterize MO's position as "anti-obesity" - she's simply being "pro good health". The Western world (and the US in particular) has a serious obesity problem, and she's simply a mouthpiece for the medical establishment who are recommending we consume less calories and fattening foods - that's not politics, that's good health advice. But it's the horrible name-calling of the news item that is the issue at hand. Do you believe that is a nice thing to say about a woman? Would your mother or father have liked to hear you say such a thing about a woman? JanW 23:47, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

JanW, too late for that. Besides, she's not that obese and she's a Christian. Which does hurt the crediblity of this site, when it overkills itself by mentioning the linking of obesity to atheism. [[User: Ronsin|Ronsin|] 10:46, 10 June 2011 EDT

I'm afraid I don't watch much TV and haven't seen that show. I'm also not sure what your question has to do with the tone in the new item? If she had been appointed as the White House Head of the FDA, perhaps a topic of conversation could be about whether she was a fit person, due to her weight. But then the issue would be - is she genetically predisposed to be heavy? Is her weight an issue? But she's the Political Director! Her post has nothing whatsoever to do with her physical attributes! And it's just so mean to say such a thing about anyone! I mean, don't you have an overweight aunt or uncle or friend or child or Mom or Pop? We all do, and I can't think you don't know someone with such a condition, Would you make fat jokes about them? JanW 01:12, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Your argument is a double sided sword andy, because they can say the same thing about us and calling people fat, we complain when the liberals insult conservatives (which I find annoying to no end, don't get me wrong) but our ground is sort of.... broken if we start doing the same. It's like when we had the giant picture of Kim Il Sung on the MPL, it doesn't leave a good first impression. --SeanS 08:19, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

I agree with SeanS (and others). There may be a "defence" in terms of Tu Quoque ("double standard", "are you suggesting that..."), there is none in terms of Chivalry. SeamusC 09:22, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Matthew 7:1-4 (KJV)

I thought perhaps the above might help put this discussion in context. Jcw 09:58, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

As a person who has struggled with weight issues my entire life, the focus of certain articles on Conservapedia lately has reminded me of all the thoughtless, cruel or nasty comments and tricks that have been directed toward me over the years. I have been made to feel unwelcome at different places due to my weight in the past. Please don’t make Conservapedia one of them as well. I have enjoyed editing here and I don’t want to leave. SharonW 10:29, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Oh Lord! I notice that, in an apparent finger-in-the-eye to me and others who would like to stop the name-calling, the In The News section has become even worse since we have been having this dialog. There's now an article about "Fatties in the Obama Administration" on the Main Page! This is deeply pathetic. Are you seriously suggesting there weren't bigger people in the Bush II, Bush !, Reagan, Nixon Govt? Really? I mean, Winston Churchill was fat! Lots of notable Christians and conservatives are fat! I thought the point of our site and our movement was to make our conservative positions and arguments stronger, not more ridiculous? JanW 10:39, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Folks, you protesteth too much. Michelle Obama criticized obesity among the American public, and perhaps rightly so. But why the double standard with respect to overweight leaders? Shouldn't there be leadership by example rather than by hollow rhetoric?--Andy Schlafly 10:58, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

We do not protest too much. To descend to personal comments about a lady is simply not the act of a gentleman. SeamusC 11:01, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

-

So because the government is officially anti-obesity, they should deny leadership jobs to anybody that is obese? Theres ALL kinds of discrimination going on there andy. Yes leadership should lead by example, but if your going to seriously suggest that somebody should be denied a job because of how they look, your not going to be able to garner a lot of support.--SeanS 11:07, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

SeanS, can you show where anyone suggests someone should be denied a leadership job because they were fat? Calling a fat libral a fat liberal is no different than calling a toothless redneck a toothless redneck. But I'm sure many fat liberals and toothless rednecks are qualifiied to sit on the Supreme Courte, and in either case should it be an impediment. Rob Smith 15:46, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

I think the liberals who protest articles on this site should think about it this way: if an administration official is too lazy to spend a little bit of time on the treadmill in order to get their weight under control, how can we expect them to be motivated enough to do the job we taxpayers overpay them for? AngusT 11:17, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Not a liberal, just concerned about the attitude this sight is going to be giving first time visitors. And like i said, saying she cant have the job because she is overweight is discrimination on many levels. If shes unfit for the job for OTHER reasons, thats ok and expected from the loyal opposition to be stated,--SeanS 11:21, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm not a liberal - I'm a person who has struggled with weight issues all my life and find it hurtful to read articles slinging mud at people because of their weight. I am about 60 pounds overweight, and have had men moo at me, had saleswomen tell me I'm too fat to shop at their store, and have had a lot of hateful comments directed toward me over the years. Is it too much to ask for some understanding about this issue? Every time I come to Conservapedia lately, I'm reminded about my high school and college years and the cruel things kids said and did to me then.SharonW 11:26, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Hiring this woman is a little like hiring an art thief to head the Smithsonian or a crack addict to head the DEA. It's just a bad combination, and it sends the wrong message. The Obama administration holds the White House and their doing their very best to destroy America, we can't afford to hold our punches. These criticisms are clearly effective or they wouldn't be hitting a nerve. Before criticizing Conservapedia I suggest you look to your own politics, faith, and waistline, to find the true source of your problem. In America today, we are fighting a kind of war for the future of our country, we can't afford to be overly squeamish.JimmyRa 11:32, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for the gratuitous slam about my weight and the implication that I'm lacking in my faith and politics, especially since you don't know me at all. I guess according to you, only skinny people are religious and conservative.SharonW 11:55, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Well, being a nebraskan with nebraska values, along with the values of NEVER insulting people about certain issues instilled in me from my conservative parents all my life, ontop of my traditional conservative protestant church life instilling on me to respect all people... i do have legitimate and not malicious reasons to dislike it. --SeanS 11:36, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Should it also be "out of bounds" to criticize someone for being lazy or for smoking cigarettes. How about appointing someone who watches television all day to head an "American Works" campaign for the Obama Administration?--Andy Schlafly 11:45, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Dependso n if thats the OONLY reason you are. and my main thing atm is how you more or less said she doesn't deserve a leadership job because shes overweight andy. --SeanS 11:51, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

But this isn't any job it's Surgeon General, America's top medical officer. When we are fighting obesity, should we really put a fat woman in the position? JimmyRa 11:57, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Is there any OTHER reasons she'd make a bad surgeon general? Emphasize those reasons, because then your actually doing the job of the loyal opposition, not just insulting people on a personal level.--SeanS 12:00, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Yes there are lots of reasons to oppose her. Especially her support for abortion, despite her supposed Catholic faith. We should hit her there too. But we shouldn't do the liberals job for them, and drop a perfectly valid criticism of her, that isn't getting as much attention as it should be in other places.JimmyRa 12:08, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Sean, you're being sidetracked. Benjamin is not being attacked for being a fat Surgeon General. She's being attacked for being fat, because you can call her "fatty" and then snicker. That's why Archuleta is being attacked for the same thing as well. If it were just a question of a Surgeon General being overweight then a Political Director's weight would be ignored. If it were about a lack of chivalry, well then: any excuse for a nine-year-old-style taunt. SeamusC 12:14, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

There is much sidetracking going on here. "Should we appoint a smoker or lazy person?" Well, smoking isn't actually illegal (yet), but it would clearly be a terrible example if the Surgeon General smoked and that would not be a good idea, no. But you seem to actually be 'fat-ist', in that you seem to be suggesting that no fat people at all should be hired by the Government. If you follow your logic, should the Sec. of Defense always be good with their fists and a good shot? Should the Surgeon General be able to run a five-minute mile? But these are distractions - the point is simply that it is mean and childish to post an item about a politician and the only comment you make about her is "she's a fatso". It seems clear your parents never taught you any manners, or that you don't poke fun at people's physical attributes - and especially you don't make fun of a woman's weight. Do you have a big hooter? Has someone here got big Dumbo ears? Who's the speccy-four-eyes around here? JanW 14:38, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Leadership by example is a sound principle. Israeli commanders lead from the front.[5] Israel has done very well in its wars. One of the reasons God became incarnate was to provide leadership by example. conservative 15:15, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Rationalization. None of this was a reasoned point about Obama failing to lead be example. This was, quite simply, "fatty, fatty, fatty, ha! ha! ha!". SeamusC 15:33, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Every Obama administration official needs to lead by example including Obama. Obama's "budget" certainly does not lead by example and neither does his Surgeon General. How can the Obama administration effectively tell people to avoid poor credit products when the Federal budget is a mess? The answer is that they can't. conservative

that doesnt make her unfit for the job. and your sidetracking this to be about obama, that isntwhat this discussion is about--SeanS 15:50, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Now you (Conservative) are talking about the Obama administration and what it should or shouldn't do. Suddenly, after you've been called on it, you stop the playground taunts. I don't buy this "concerned citizen" stance for a millisecond. You're pretending to clean the counter after being found with your hands in the cookie-jar. No-one putting forward these "fat" jibes was making a comment about leading by example, no-one was trying to expose hypocrisy. SeamusC 15:52, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

To be fair, they were, they just did it in a way that seems more like insulting somebody. yes, its awkward for the surgeon general to have a health problem, but the surgeon general throughout history has not been on the ball for everything (some smoking endorsements come to mind...)--SeanS 15:54, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

I'd agree that they were, if they had just made a comment about the Surgeon General. But no, the comment about Archuleta reveals the true motive. Name calling. 16:01, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Does anyone else find it odd that a fuss is being made over here, alleging that Conservapedia is anti-fat people, yet not a word of protest about Michelle Obama and the Obama administration's official anti-obese policy? Double standard indeed. AngusT 15:56, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

theres a difference between a program to make people healthy and saying somebody shouldnt have a job because they are fat. --SeanS 15:58, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Has the U.S. Surgeon General lost her weight? Is she still overweight? If so, why? I think she has some splainin' to do. Maybe conservatives should blanket the internet with Surgeon General satire pieces. :) Maybe Conservapedia should lead by example as far as creating some overweight Surgeon General satire pieces. :) Will Karajou create an overweight U.S. Surgeon General satire cartoon? conservative 16:12, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Maybe one young man should grow up and learn to be a gentleman. SeamusC 16:16, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Would you like to see Karajou create an overweight U.S. Surgeon General satire cartoon? conservative 16:21, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Ha, I can just see her placing Surgeon General's warnings on carrots and celery.JimmyRa 16:27, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

"Maybe conservatives should blanket the internet with Surgeon General satire pieces" - I can see that being a very persuasive argument in these politically divisive times. Your argument cuts through the flak of the political rhetoric, and gets to the real nitty-gritty of Left vs. Right - "Nyah Nyah you're a big fat cow". Is this really your suggestion for a strong argument against the liberal agenda, because if it is, we conservatives are in a whole more trouble than I had feared. JanW 16:32, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Satire has always been one of the most effective tools in a critics toolbox. Google "A Modest Proposal". Turn on The Daily Show and you can see how the left does it. It is an effective tool in pointing out hypocrisy.JimmyRa 16:37, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

I would like to see a satire cartoon created about the U.S Surgeon General called "The U.S. Surgeon General: Unfit to command" conservative 16:34, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

This thread is not about the Surgeon General, but about Obama's Political Director, Ms.Archuleta. What has her weight got to do with her position? And would you mind if I asked your weight Mr. so-called "conservative" (I think I can guess your age...)? I'm guessing you to be an overweight teenager, with your sad little obsessions with unhealthy anorexics. JanW 16:42, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

It's a useless battle, Jan. Fat people are the target du jour here right now and it's too much fun to throw insults at them. Those flinging the mud have never been on the receiving end, because if they had, they would have more empathy.SharonW 16:45, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

"A Modest Proposal"? "A MODEST PROPOSAL"!!!! Aschlafly and Conservative. Swift. Let's consider that again. On the one hand we have Aschlafly and Conservative. On the other we have JONATHAN SWIFT. On the one hand we have the most amazing satire, one that starts off indistinguishable from a real proposal and then builds slowly and imperceptibility to an absurd exaggeration. A true work of art that stands up to scrutiny centuries later. On the other hand we have "fatty!". JimmyRa, you've sucked me in, but now I know. I take my hat off to a master parodist. (Almost worthy of Swift) SeamusC 16:46, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

BTW if anyone hasn't read "A Modest Proposal" I'd recommend taking JimmyRa's advice and googling it. It is an absolute delight. A perfectly crafted satire, a thing of utter beauty that is a joy forever.SeamusC 16:52, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

SeamusC, why don't you lead by example and create some satires that build slowly at Conservapedia which you feel are quality pieces? Show me how it's done. conservative 16:55, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

A similar reason to why I don't play guitar. I tried to learn guitar, and then I heard Hendrix. I was never going to get anywhere near that, so I gave up. I've read "A Modest Proposal". There is no chance I could ever do anything that could even pretend to be near the same level. Seriously, Conservative, if you haven't read it: give it a go. You should love it. It's the Sistine Chapel of satires. SeamusC 17:02, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps it is time for someone with the designated powers to show a few people to the door? A few questions are one thing, but this constant criticism, as well as accusations that people defending the site are parodists, is quite another. Though they may claim to be conservative, their actions speak to the contrary, and I see little point in continuing to grant liberals intent on insulting this website the privilege of editing here. As for comparisons to Swift, well, I think we can let the numbers speak for themselves. Conservapedia has over 250 million page views. Does anything think that many people have read "A Modest Proposal"? AngusT 16:59, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

This site has been on a "bash fat people" kick for a while, not just about the Obama officials, but also equating obese people with atheists, gays and lesbians. I'll be honest - I'm overweight. For the past few weeks, every time I come to the site, I feel like I've been slapped in the face with hatred. Maybe you don't think I've contributed enough to allow me my opinion, but I've done my best with my edits. I don't know what to do. I've enjoyed working on the various articles, but the atmosphere here for us fat people just isn't very friendly.SharonW 17:28, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

No one here is aiming any of this in your direction. I'm sorry if you were hurt by it. But we can't refrain from addressing hypocrisy because it might step on some toes or seem politically incorrect. You can criticize someone for being an alcoholic without hating alcoholics. It is about hating the sin but loving the sinner. Sometimes revealing the truth can be painful, but silence and ignorance hurts more in the long run.JimmyRa 17:57, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but again I have to ask - what is the hypocrisy of Obama's Political Director being slightly overweight? Remember, this is not a Government post - this is his campaign director for his election. And do you know anything about the woman's genetic background, i.e. is she predisposed to be heavier? Karl Rove, the equivalent for Bush II, was a very heavy man. JanW 18:05, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Laura Bush wasn't telling us what to eat and the Republican weren't banning transfats. It is the fact that the Democrats are trying to reach into our private lives that makes the hypocrisy particularly galling. If they are going to tell us what to eat shouldn't they at least be setting a good example? And appointing a fat woman as surgeon general makes this all so much worse. The budget isn't the only thing that needs to loose a few pounds in the Obama White House.JimmyRa 18:15, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Katherine Archuleta doesn't exist in a vacuum (Which is a very good thing for her). She is a public figure connected to Obama and the Democratic party. She has to be judged in that context. Next to the situation involving the surgeon general it's relatively minor, but still worth noting because of the Democrats rank hypocrisy. Oh well, it could be a good thing, maybe the Obama campaign will move slower.JimmyRa 18:41, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Here we go again. Can we not critize without bringing weight on a good deal of the posts? Who writes these tidbits?

A reminder

"Will the Arab Spring Lead to a Post-American Era?"

1. The lead sentence should red "ostensibly" where it reads "ostensible." 2. Is it not a good thing that a foreign power (i.e. the U.S.) would no longer be able to "cajole" regimes into acting in its own interest -- as opposed to the interests of the people to whom those regimes are responsible? Was that not what the American Revolution was about, at its core? ReneH 12:03, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

The growing U.S. federal deficit, currency devaluation and trade imbalance has a better chance of doing that. If I am not mistaken, historically speaking, more empires crumble from within rather than external forces. Due to human nature, societal complacency often has a way of setting in and undo successes. conservative 15:13, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

Huh? and i also dont see the problem from the perspective that freedom and democracy is good. sure it isnt exactly in the US best interest that they might have regimes not so friendly to us, but thats sorta how free choice works, as long as the people actually did choose them, not rigged elections and other shams >.>--SeanS 15:56, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

Something about the creationist "wildfire"

since i can't edit conservatives talkpage last i checked, I thought, wouldn't it be better to call it a flood, since non-creationists reject the flood happended? a better use of words for the goal it wants ^_^--SeanS 01:08, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Hum

Mr Schlafly, I wonder what might me the "theist" explanation for the "HUM"--CesaroG 08:19, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Creationists believe in more rapid speciation than evolutionists. I propose a new form of cricket. :)[6] John Baumgardner might say that it is a geological phenomena that defies uniformitarian geology. :) Alternatively, spiteful demonic humming. :) "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Shakespeare conservative 08:28, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Conservative.. I am a bit confused. why do you say it is a new form of cricket? Also what is demonic humming? Maybe your boss, Mr Schlafly might have something substantial in his mind. I am a theist myself, but can't give an explanation. --CesaroG 08:49, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

That is not fair, labelling me like that. BTW.. you have not answered my question and who is shock of god? --CesaroG 08:58, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

ShockogGod is a youtube personality on the side of creationism. as to the accusation of people being atheist, that is rather unfair to label them right away--SeanS 09:12, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Shockofgod is world famous and his fame grows daily! There are 16,200 Google results for the search "Farrell Till" and 244,000 Google results for shockofgod.[7][8] Soon there will be 488,000 Google results for the search result "shockofgod" and 8,100 Google search results for "Farrell Till". :) Atheism is just a squeak in American society and it is going to become half a squeak. [9] :) conservative 09:13, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

let me reply once more,lest i fall foul of 90/10 rule. User conservative could be right in a way as I am atheist to his god, converting from Christianity to Hinduism many years ago. I am from South India and conservative will know from personal experience that there are not many atheists where we both are from. I worship Shiva, the most powerful Hindu God, but it can be argued that you also worship the same god. I was born into a Christian family and was a practising Christian till 17 years of age when I went to University and my best friend was a Hindu who enlightened me. I have found peace since. I agree with conservative that atheism generally is on the decline. --CesaroG 09:44, 13 June 2011 (EDT)